masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Codex/Aliens: Non-Council Races
Ooo. Might be worth putting some of these Codex pics (I'm looking at the hanar and batarian ones) on the main race pages. --Tullis 22:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Reapers: Indoctrination codex image Since my edit summary was kinda mangled: I recently added the Reapers: Indoctrination codex image into the article, but it's the exact same as the image for "Reapers", which appears immediately above it. I did this mostly because I think that the template for codex audio looks strange without an image inside of it, especially when every other template on the page has one. It sticks out like a sore thumb. I imagine some people might take more offense at the duplicated image though, so I'm stating ahead of time that I'm not attached to keeping the image there. -- Dammej (talk) 23:39, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :If that's the image in the game then it has to be that (or we can put there a crazy salarian's face from Virmire :P ) SoulRipper 23:46, September 12, 2010 (UTC) ::Nah, I wasn't suggesting that there be a replacement image. Just that some people might prefer no image in order to avoid duplication. -- Dammej (talk) 23:48, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :::I was just kiding. It doesnt bothers me the duplicated image but whatever. SoulRipper 23:52, September 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::I believe the reason Dammej posted it was to prevent the removal of the image, like Spart and myself have done in the past with things like this. If the image is the same, then it needs to be here as well, because we only accept official pictures in the Codex. I don't have a problem with it, as it is official, even if it is duplicated. Lancer1289 23:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC) :::::Pretty much, yeah. My intention was to clarify that the image for the two entries (Reapers, and Reapers: Indoctrination) in-game are exactly the same, and that the inclusion of two duplicate images back-to-back here is not a careless mistake of some sort. -- Dammej (talk) 00:02, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I know. That's why I said "If that's the image in the game then it has to be that". The salarian face thing was just a joke.SoulRipper 10:27, September 13, 2010 (UTC) Sovereign Codex Image Since we have that discussion about the duplicate image above, I decided to check to see if Sovereign had a different image in ME, since I was pretty sure it did. Which I then discovered to be true. Sovereign's Codex image from ME has been at the top of the Reaper page for a while now and somehow it didn't make it into the Codex. Curious. Anyway I'll be putting that one in becuase the ME pictures should be displayed if there is an entry for it in ME. It sort of goes along with "if an entry was a Primary entry in Mass Effect, yet a Secondary entry in Mass Effect 2, then it remains a Primary Codex Entry". Personally I think that the images for the entires should be paired with the picture that they were introduced with, and since most of the primary entries change pictures from ME to ME2, and the pictures stayed, I think this one should follow suit. My examples are that the asari image changes to a wider version of Liara's romance picture, the turian one changes to a image of Saren with an explosion in the background, and the salarian image changes to show what I'm guessing to be a member of the STG. Lancer1289 00:15, September 13, 2010 (UTC) :Note that the codex entry for sovereign as it appears in ME is in the Codex/Ships and Vehicles section. The two entries are different as well. -- Dammej (talk) 00:16, September 13, 2010 (UTC) ::Wow I just can't read anything today can I. This one is my bad, the entries are different and in different places. Wow how did I mess that up. Lancer1289 00:22, September 13, 2010 (UTC) Reaper codex question Are the codices supposed to be from Alliance or "official" sources? The (ME2) "reaper" codex has always seemed fishy to me. Or are they meant to keep us still guessing about the truth of the reapers? --AnotherRho 05:44, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :Well... I can't say that this will definitively answer your question, but the print version (the "Galactic Codex: Essentials, Edition 2183", included with limited edition copies of the first game) is indeed written as an Alliance-published pamphlet. It's got an Alliance logo on the cover, and the intro sentence is (I shouldn't get sued for printing one sentence, right? :P) "As a human serving in the Perseus Arm of the Milky Way galaxy, you should be aware of the vast history that predates human arrival in the area." The rest of the pamphlet is similarly human-centric. So, assuming that the Codex in-game works the same way, yes, it'd be an Alliance source. SpartHawg948 05:50, September 16, 2010 (UTC) ::No, I think you're safe... after putting in the second quotation mark! ;) - Yes, thanks, that is info of which I was unaware, and makes for a strong likelihood (hence there even is a narrator). Buuuut then the "reaper indoctrination" entry is a little wayward (notwithstanding its utility to inform players, who did not play the first game, of information learned in Mass Effect). So, as you said, not a shut-the-book answer, but interesting nonetheless. --AnotherRho 05:58, September 16, 2010 (UTC) :::To the same point, another example (indicating codex-officiality) is the Gillian Grayson trivia entry. AnotherRho 06:01, September 16, 2010 (UTC) Add the Drell Codex Entry This is a page for codex entries on species no? The drell entry may be deleted from the final product that is mass effect 2. However, I still believe it has a place on this page. If you would integrate the audio codex entry of the drell into this page that would be great i think. thanks --AdmiralPedro1stFleet 06:52, December 22, 2010 (UTC) :No, absolutely not. The drell Codex entry, like the other three cut entries, are cut content, and cut content =/= canon information. Codex articles are direct copies of the Codex in the games and because the drell entry was cut from Mass Effect 2, for whatever reason, it cannot go here. So it does not have a place on this page since it is not in the game and is therefore not part of canon, again for whatever reason. Actually, if it wasn't for me, we wouldn't even know about it. :And I will instantly revert any edit to add it considering it is not canon information and does not appear in the game. Lancer1289 07:05, December 22, 2010 (UTC) ::I agree 110%. The drell codex entry did not appear in the actual in-game Codex. As such, it does not appear in our Codex, which is a recreation of the in-game Codex. We are not in the business of picking and choosing which bits of cut content we think should have been in the game and adding them as if they were. And that is exactly what yo are asking us to do. If the developers wish to add the drell Codex entry to the in-game Codex at a future date and time, great. We'll add it to our Codex then. If they choose not to do so, then we'll leave it out. They are the ones who decide what is canon, not us. SpartHawg948 16:23, December 22, 2010 (UTC) :::Geeze, chill out. You can explain why you won't do it without acting like he just insulted your mother.-- 22:08, March 20, 2011 (UTC) ::::And there was just no need for that comment. Petty jabs like that are just completely uncalled for and unnecessary. Lancer1289 22:25, March 20, 2011 (UTC) :::::I was under the impression that all I had done was explain why it wouldn't be done. At what point did I act "like he just insulted my mother"? Literally nothing I did strayed from offering a detailed description of why it wasn't on our Codex page. SpartHawg948 06:19, March 21, 2011 (UTC) Confirming Secondary Codex Entry-- Collectors: Harbinger To whomever is confirming this codex entry or plans to: the only way I have been able to get "Collectors: Harbinger" was to spare the Collector Base at the end of the game and give it to Cerberus. So, fire up an end save with that choice. For fun: if one were to speculate, I guess this factoid is presented to Shep as a small fruit gained from allowing Cerberus to analyze the base. But this is just speculation and the facts in the entry are evident anyway by paying close attention to the ending cutscene. Thanks! --Commander Shepard 00:51, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :Please keep the "For fun" sections to the forums or blog posts as that is not what a talk page is for. Lancer1289 01:31, April 4, 2011 (UTC) :::Fine--Commander Shepard 01:43, April 4, 2011 (UTC)